Is Canon's \"L\" glass worth the price on a D30?

I read on a post here that Canon's "L" glass is "at least as good as the 10D's sensor." So does that mean it is for more capable than what the D30 sensor can capture? I'm looking for the best glass that will match the capabilities of my D30, and can't see spending the extra $$ on glass that will out perform my camera. If the sensor on the D30 is incapable of distinguishing between the quality of the "L" glass, I can't see spending the extra $$ on it.

Any ideas.

Thanks.

What are our current lenses? What are your shooting needs/desires? Do you think that in 2 years you might upgrade to the successor of the 10D and/or a cost-reduced 1Ds?

I have a 10D. My current lenses are the "thrifty fity" 50mm 1.8, the 28-135 IS USM, and the 100-400 L IS USM. From my perspective, the "L" is easily worth the high price. Although its range makes my "L" a special use lens, I find myself trying to search out situations where that zoom range is most appropriate.

Here are some thoughts about the "L" lenses:
(1) They are the best you can get and are always mechanically satisfying to use.
(2) They work with all the current "EOS" camera bodies and will work with all the new top-of-the-line Canon offerings for the next 10 years.
(3) As a "used but in top shape with all documentation, original box, etc" they usually fetch full price on eBay. Yes, that's right... a "used L" fetches full price on eBay--buy stock in eBay right now!!!

Your D30 will be dead in 3 years, while your L-glass will continue to rock for years to come.

An L lense will shine on a D30, at least it did on mine.

I love the results from L Glass on my 10D. My recent Galleries are all shot with L Glass: 16-35 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, and 100-400 IS L f/4-5.6. I waited fifteen years to buy it. It's worth it.

I certainly noticed the difference when I put L glass on my D30. I've changed the camera and still got the lenses.

Regards,

I think a good lens sees far mour pixels than a small sensor chip. In the absence of any statistics, my guess would be as good (or bad) as anybody's. An L lens may be capable of capturing 100million to 10 billion pixels. I think even a low quality lens can see 10,000 pixels in a 1-inch long straight line. Then it can see 100 million pixels in 1 square inch area.

An L lens may see 100,000 pixels in a 1-inch line, or a 10 billion pixels in a square inch.

A full frame digital requires more than 10 million pixels and very costly. Thus, lenses will outlast many digial cameras yet to be invented.

Did you ever ask yourself why most of the digital cameras (e.g. D60, 10D, etc.) have a sensor that is smaller than full 35mm size? Doesn't it seem like a problem some respects?

Well, the smaller sensor is something that can be produced with the standard semiconductor lithography equipment, and that means it can be produced in mass quantities at minimal cost.

The full size senor can be produced, but maybe only at one semiconductor fab plant that uses non-standard lithography equipment, so that means it is produced in small quantities at increased cost.

However, the market demand will drive design changes. If Canon perceives that there is a big enough market for a full size sensor, then they will eventually get those fabs ramped up. But then, there is the philosophical debate that the current sensors we have are good enough now.

---Bob Gross---

This is why I'm quickly becoming hooked on this forum. Everyone has offered great advice and asked good questions. To answer pwagner's questions: I currently only have one lens, a 28-200mm USM. My photography needs: There isn't one specific area of photography that I concentrate on. We travel quite a bit, and I love taking pictures of street scenes; I'm a teacher, and often take pictures of students for projects, and then at the usual family functions I'm the designated photographer. I’m an amateur with a growing respect for the complexity of taking a good photograph.

Thanks for all the advice. We have a great store around here that rents some good equipment, I think I'll head down and rent some different gear and do some comparisons.

The Canon Glass is the best choice. the L lenes are fantastic and don't forget that you are only using the sweet spot on that lens because of the multiplier of 1.6. My 24-70 2.8 is just incredible. I print shots on a HITi 460P a 6300 dpi dye sub photo printer and people are amazed at how sharp athe photos print and the color seems jump off the paper. I don't think that there are any other lenes that will give you that clairity and definiton on an EOS body that canon does. I shoot with a D10 and a 1D but I had a D30 and I think that I took some of my best shots are still some done with 100-400 and the D30 even though the camera is now obsolite.